Home Politics & Debate
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Domestic violence register

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
Plans are underway for a new domestic violence register, similar to the Sex Offenders Register.

Full story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2937486.stm

Is this a good idea or not? Personally I think it is, the issue of domestic violence is something that is looked over or ignored far too often, and this is a step towards making it a higher-profile issue. On the other hand, I can see the problems caused if someone were to be wrongfully placed on the list by the false claims of an angry/jealous ex-partner.

Opinions please?

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Hmmmm.

    On the whole, I think it's a good idea although there is something a bit "nanny state" about it.

    Speaking as someone who has been in an abusive relationship in the past, I now feel that I know the warning signs to look out for in a partner.

    For people who have bever experienced violence within a relationship, they may pass an incident off as a "one off" or make excuses, then before they know it, they are in so deep, living with the guy (sorry to be sexist but it is mostly men) and unable to get out.

    A system like this gives women the opportunity to get out, no woman should have to put up with violence.

    On the other hand, maybe these men can change. I am not convinced and don't know enough about the facts, but MAYBE people can reform, and society should give them a chance. However, my honest opinion is that a bully never changes, a man with a nasty temper who enjoyes hitting a woman isn't going to change, something inside them will flip and they will end up hitting their partner for some stupid reason.

    If I met someone and really liked them, and found out that they had convictions for domestic violence, I like to think I would get out as quick as possible...these men can be very Jekyll and Hyde and seem like lovely, normal guys to everyone on the surface.

    If a system like this saves a woman from being abused then that is a good thing. There is the issue that a punishment has been administered and the man should be allowed to get on with his life, but I feel that is his problem, he shouldn't have done the deed in the first place.

    People should remember that the vast majority of domestic violence incidents are not reported because of fear, mixed up with a warped kind of love or loyalty which you have to your partner despite the fact that they hurt you.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Re: Domestic violence register
    Originally posted by StarryEyes
    I can see the problems caused if someone were to be wrongfully placed on the list by the false claims of an angry/jealous ex-partner.

    That would be my worry too. I think they would have to look for a way for their to be conclusive evidence that domestic violence took place, and also that someone wasn't placed on the register for defending themselves (ie. a woman hits a man, he defends himself, he is placed on register because he is the male).

    Will females be eligible to be placed on the register? Who will have access to it? How will it effect our lives?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The trouble is that domestic violence, unlike sexual offence, does not create a danger to the public at large, as it goes on domestically. It is a disgusting thing to happen, and the people concerned should be punished for it, but it is not a matter for the state to list these criminals. It is highly unlikely that a woman will be randomly beaten by a man who beats his wife, which is the main difference between sexual offences and domestic violence.

    If were going to go down that road, then why not have a register of dangerous drivers, or a register of football hooligans, or a register of drug addicts? It is a very dangerous idea, and stinks of Blairite control-freakery; domestic offenders are bad, but generally among domestic offenders high levels of depressive and personality illness are to be found. Next well have a national register of people who, say, self-harm, or attempty suicide.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But a person who self harms is not hurting anyone but themselves, wheras a person who hits their partner may go on to more serious things, the violence often escalates and far too many woman are even killed by their partner or ex partner.

    This system is to be controlled, not every person would be allowed to know who was or was not a domestic abuser, it says it would be assessed.

    "It is highly unlikely that a woman will be randomly beaten by a man who beats his wife"

    No, not a random woman walking down the street, but a random woman who men him in a pub, thought he seemed like a nice guy, then starts beating her. This system would protect her.

    I can see that there would be flaws in it, but the man who hits his girlfriend/wife is not always the loud, confident type who drinks a lot, it can be the nice quiet accountant who lives next door.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    i think its a bad idea, and would stop people reporting it, if they thought their partner would be put on a register. I think its very nanny state-ish
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Re: Domestic violence register
    Originally posted by StarryEyes
    On the other hand, I can see the problems caused if someone were to be wrongfully placed on the list by the false claims of an angry/jealous ex-partner.

    I dont think false claims could be made, it did say people who have had convictions for 6 months or more would be added. So in that case they have been tried for the offence previously.

    Im not so sure about the register thing anyway, lets face it if its anything like the sex offenders list that brings me no comfort because it doesent tell me if theres a sex offender next door to me does it? so really what use is this to anyone?

    If someone was added to the register they arent going to tell a prospective partner they are on it are they, so how would the partner find out about their past?

    hhhhmmm im not sure :)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The problem with domestic violence is that it is shrouded in secrecy. Women can be terrified to report it and can feel to blame for the incidents. Many women also only call the police out of desperation to stop the assault, not with the intention of pressing charges. Many take their violent partner back. All these reasons above are what will stop women calling the police at all and it will seem like domestic violence has decreased. But it wont, women will just have another reason not to speak out about it.

    I was sat at home a few weeks back and witnessed a man (a neighbour) seriously assaulting his wife, first in the street, then he dragged her inside for more of the same. I called the police and charges were made. Well, he's now back home living and she dropped the charges. I now have the choice of withdrawing my statement and letting the bastard away with serious assault, almost killing her in front of their 8 month old baby, or putting myself in the firing line. Much as I hate to admit it, I'll probably go with the former.

    I advocate the Zero Tolerance campaign. Encourage women to become more vocal about DV, make it clear it wont be tolerated in our society, educate people.

    But what good is a list of offenders that regular joes wont access anyway?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    i have had some domestic violence commited on one of my daughters by a boyfriend so know how nasty it can be but i have to say registers sound like bad news to me. if someone is found guilty of a violent offence then lock them up. if not ...sorry to say it but tough. life has to go on. however hard. the way things are going they will have a register of people who tell bad taste or racist jokes. half of us who come in this forum will end up on a register of people who slag off george bush. probably already are.
    people are being told they can't hunt. soon we'll be told we cant fish. just how much information do you think the 'authorities' should be alowed to compile on a person? it's getting ridiculous.
    don't give me the usual bullshit ...'well if your doing nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about'. you the people are being conned by the use of emotive issuse into giving up one freedom after another. total profiling will start at school next ...get that kid on the wotsit register ...he's rude to shop assistants.
    if the family unit can be put back in place somehow, surely we could then deal with issuse within the family.
    do any of you actualy believe a domestic violence register is going to eradicate domestic violence?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by PussyKatty
    But a person who self harms is not hurting anyone but themselves

    Sicide victiomes families? Not really my main point though.
    wheras a person who hits their partner may go on to more serious things, the violence often escalates and far too many woman are even killed by their partner or ex partner.

    Yeah, but if were going to go down that road then anyone who has ever got a speeding ticket should be on a register of potential killers. Speeding kills mroe than domestic violence.
    This system is to be controlled, not every person would be allowed to know who was or was not a domestic abuser, it says it would be assessed.

    Whats the point of it then? Its not like the Sex Offenders Register, which means coppers can pay a visit to any know pedos if a kid goes missing. What, is it every time someone hears this guy shouting the cops will come round and nick him? And if its a public register, then all it is is subjecting a person who, if not convicted, is an innocent, to the stigma of this crime.
    "It is highly unlikely that a woman will be randomly beaten by a man who beats his wife"

    No, not a random woman walking down the street, but a random woman who men him in a pub, thought he seemed like a nice guy, then starts beating her. This system would protect her.


    How, excatly? The cops will know about him, but public naming and shaming is wrong, as weve already established. And, besides, the reason why so many women stay with an abusive husband is the same reason why a public register would have no effect, as the girl would feel she could change him. Especially as shes not gonna pop in the cop shop on the way back from the pub to make sure her date aint a wife-beater.
    I can see that there would be flaws in it, but the man who hits his girlfriend/wife is not always the loud, confident type who drinks a lot, it can be the nice quiet accountant who lives next door.

    And your point is what exactly? Its like saying not all football hooligans come from Hull- interesting, but irrelevant.

    I fail to see a bonus in this idea, and the many negatives I see include interfering with domestic matters, interfering with human rights, irrelevance (after all, any CONVICTED domestic abusers will be listed in any good law report), cost and gaining political points over a deeply distressing matter.

    Quite simply, if a person is beaten in the home it is up to them to press charges, and if they do not press charges then its sad but unavoidable. A register is a preposterous idea, and one that is deeply worrying to me as a student of law, and as a citizen of this country.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit it isn't a public register, it is only for a select number of govt authorities and agencies, it is to be carefully monitored and only used when appropriate, just to help keep an eye on things. There is nothing to indicate that it would be used for insufficient reason against people who aren't currently offending.......

    Also what is peoples problems with the concept of 'nanny state'? Don't you want to be protected?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    .
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fair enough, any examples of this happening?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Toadborg
    Kermit it isn't a public register, it is only for a select number of govt authorities and agencies, it is to be carefully monitored and only used when appropriate, just to help keep an eye on things. There is nothing to indicate that it would be used for insufficient reason against people who aren't currently offending.......

    Also what is peoples problems with the concept of 'nanny state'? Don't you want to be protected?

    Then precisely what is the point of the register? I can see the point of the Sex Offenders Register, it helps keep a tab on rapists and pedophiles so that when a woman is raped or a child abducted they can be easily contacted. But I see no benefit of this register- what is it to do, make sure all the wife-beaters are behaving themselves when a woman gets mugged?

    Eitehr it has public access, in order to protect the women, or it doesnt exist at all. And as a public register is distasteful, as well as being contrary to Article 8 ECHR, I think the only optioon is to shelve this ridiculous plan. If a woman has been beaten, then no register will do her good, and previous convictions cannot be taken into account during trial anyway, only sentencing.

    besides which, I firmly believe that domestic violencve, despite being a social cancer, is of little or no danger to the general public as a whole. It needs to be stamped down on, but making it a public offence- negating the need for the victim to press charges, as the CPS can press charges regardless- will have much more effect than this half-baked nonsense.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Toadborg
    Fair enough, any examples of this happening?

    Ill assume that comment was unintentionally offensive, and pass it by.

    There is a fine line between "protection" and "totalitarian", dont ever forget that fact. Any information taken in the form of these registers, or passports with fingerprint protection, can be used for any purpose- honest or otherwise. I would love to be able to trust this Government to be honest and scrupulous with this information, but its a very one-sided game- once they have the information, they can use it for whatever means they see fit. In somewhere like the UK it is unlikely that the information would be abused, but what would there be to stop the Government from abusing this information for shady dealings?

    There is already instances of Blair using confidential information to score political points against critics- witness the woman whose medical records were disclosed at Prime Minister's Questions- and where are the sfaeguards to prevent any other information being used? Dont mention statute, Parliament is sovereign and can change whichever statute it wants. I trust no Government to behva ehonestly and scrupulously, and these registers are merely one step towards a nanny state thatb would be doubleplusgood for public control and doubleplusbad for public rights and liberties.

    I think I prefer negative liberty (freedom from) over positive liberty (freedom to) any day of the week, thanks muchly.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But I thought the sex offenders register was not public, i thought that was the whole point of the Sarahs law campaign........
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Offensive? :confused:

    As you mention parliament is sovereign so surely you defeat your own argument. If you are saying the govt can subvert information but that we can't control it because parliament can do what it wants then why would they need to get the information covertly.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Toadborg
    But I thought the sex offenders register was not public, i thought that was the whole point of the Sarahs law campaign........

    It isnt, but senior police officers know whos on the register, and where they live, so visits can be arranged quite swiftly:)
    Originally posted by Toadborg
    Offensive? :confused:

    Doesnt matter:)
    As you mention parliament is sovereign so surely you defeat your own argument. If you are saying the govt can subvert information but that we can't control it because parliament can do what it wants then why would they need to get the information covertly.

    Dont see how- in theory what you say is true, but I fail to see how politically a Parliament could ask for any information it wanted just for shits and giggles. But thats by the by.

    My real point was that many Government divisions operate away from Parliament, such as MI5 and MI6, and neither of those have what youd call a flawless record on operating ethically. basically I dont trust people with such important information, as it can be disclosed to anyone for whatever purpose, and find these developments very dangerous for public liberty. And it isnt strictly true that those who do no wrong can have no fear- the police havent got a flawless record on fitting people up either.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Kermit


    Dont see how- in theory what you say is true, but I fail to see how politically a Parliament could ask for any information it wanted just for shits and giggles. But thats by the by.

    My real point was that many Government divisions operate away from Parliament, such as MI5 and MI6, and neither of those have what youd call a flawless record on operating ethically. basically I dont trust people with such important information, as it can be disclosed to anyone for whatever purpose, and find these developments very dangerous for public liberty. And it isnt strictly true that those who do no wrong can have no fear- the police havent got a flawless record on fitting people up either.

    That contradicts again, why would the secret services use information for no reason and if they did have a reason then wouldn't they get the info anyway?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    .
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yes the no-one knew much about BSE and its link to CJD, precisely why the govt was right to take measures.....

    I would imagine that many people would suggest that there are many social effects of drug use (or at least abuse) probably best not to have a debate on this thread but I would suggest that you would be mistaken in saying drug use only affects yourself.......

    I kind of agree about ID cards but I assure you that the govt and many other people already have access to all kinds of information about you and everyone else, much of which you probably gave away freely.......

    I also disagree with making links between the introduction of a schmee for one purpose and then disparaging it for the 'possiblities' oif what it could lead to, its analytically invalid......
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Toadborg
    I also disagree with making links between the introduction of a schmee for one purpose and then disparaging it for the 'possiblities' oif what it could lead to, its analytically invalid......

    Why, its happened before. Temporary measures in times of strife rarely get revoked, and the civil liberties have gone for good.

    Of course the security services can get a lot of information about me, but they cant get my fingerprints without my consent- the passports would remove the ability to consent to it. Its not a matter of paraloia, its simply that governments cannot be trusted with information, and they should not be entitled to enfore disclosure of informationw ithout valid grounds. That someone is a wife beater is not sufficient grounds to stick their name on a list for five or ten years, because there are many violent crimes and domestic abuse, like pedophilia, is a vastly over-hyped danger.

    I do not want to lose my civil liberties under the pretence that its somehow protecting society, regardless of how real the danger is. And most of the "dangers" today are nothing but hyperbole- Im statistically more likely to die from a carrot than I am from passive smoking, and my future children are about 30 times more likely to be killed by a drunk driver than by a "grooming" pedo.

    You only miss your rights and freedoms when theyre gone.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Kermit
    Why, its happened before. Temporary measures in times of strife rarely get revoked, and the civil liberties have gone for good.

    I agree with you on protecting rights and freedoms but suggesting that there is a possibility that introducing one thing could lead to another is not a good argumnet against it.

    In your example the issue of returning the freedoms is seperate form the issue of taking them during the emergency........
Sign In or Register to comment.